TALKBACK 1997 : September 26-30

 

September/26/1997/ELAN: Re: HUMAN BEHAVIOR: the BOTTOM LINE

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:08:31 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

 

Estimado Lucio:

Again, there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on your part.

You seem to be confusing the Search Conference (SC) process with the

different characteristics of DP1 and DP2 structures since you talk about

a manager or "coordinator of the conference". In actuality, DP2

structures are based on the assumption that humans CAN be purposeful &

ideal-seeking in the RIGHT environment and thus do NOT need to have a

manager/supervisor as DP1 structures which assume that people are

incompetent. So, what you are calling DP3 may qualify as Dr. Emery's DP2

(with the corrections below). There is no need for reinventing DP2.

There are more than 50 years of applied research behind it.

Unfortunately, this is fairly new (~5 years?) here in

the US. I wonder why??? :)

Kind regards,

JC Wandemberg

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear Wandenberg, I made a mistake: I typed PD1 instead of PD2. The

> postulate PD2 is the one of Dr. Emary right?. Any way since you said that

> DP1 is the antithesis of sustainability I deduced that according to you

> PD2 is sustainability or consitent with sustainability. Again, in a

> contructive way I will try to show you that what you think may not be

> true: There are two more postulates that are missing from Dr. Emary

> approach, including the one consistent with sustainability. To show that,

> I will follow a similar simple approach as before to make a connection

> between this discusion and my proposed framework of "sustainability":

> The terminolgoy used will be similar for comparison purposes:

>

> A= manager role is active

> a= manager role is passive

> B= participant role is active

> b= participant role is passive

>

> >From the logical combination of these characteristics we can developed the

> following four theories:

> 1) theory Ab

> This theory assumes that the manager role is active and the

> participant role is passive. The participant will do what the manager

> wants him to do and what ever the participant think will not affect the

> decision of the manager. Familiar, this is the DP1 postulate that Dr.

> Emary is trying to change, which by the way is the typical common top-down

> approach: YOU NEED A BOSS FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK.

>

> 2) Theory aB

> This theory assumes that the manager role is passive and that the

> participant role is active. The manager will do what the participants

> wants him to do and what ever the manager think will not affect the

> decision-making process of the participant. The participants have control

> of the "process". This is the DP2 postulate of Dr. Emary, where the feed

> back from the manager(coordinator of the conference) is assumed not to

> affect the "process"(due to "peripheral role"). This is a type of

> Botton-up approach: YOU STILL NEED A COORDINATOR FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK.

WRONG: THE SYSTEM IS SELF-MANAGING (BUT NOT AUTONOMOUS)

> 3) Theory ab

> This is the postulate I call "DP0" since both the role of the

> manager and the role of the participant are passive. They are in their

> own world: What the manager does does not affect what the participant does

> or what the participant does does not affect what the manager does.

>

> 4) Theory AB

> This is the other postulate missing, which I call DP3, where both

> the manager and the participant have an active role: the decisions taken

> by the manager reflect the concerns of the participants and what ever the

> participants do is consistent with the concerns of the manager. This is

> TRUE sustainabilidy, don't you think so Dear Wanderberg?: YOU NEED THE

> ACTIVE INTERACTION OF THE TWO ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM

WRONG!!!!!!!! YOU NEED THE ACTIVE INTERACTION OF *ALL* THE ELEMENTS OF THE

SYSTEM. THIS IS DP2.

> In conclusion;

> 1) the postulate DP2 is the antithesis of the postulate DP1, but not of

> sustainability since the postulate DP2 assumes that one element of the

> system is passive: the coordinator or manager.

> 2) the postulate DP3 is consistent with "sustainability" and therefore, it

> is consistent with the framework I have proposed.

> 3) the postulates DP1 and DP2 are consistent with the concept of

> "sustainable development".

> As always comments are welcome;

> Greetings to all;

> Lucio

> On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> > Dear Toledo, DP1 is just the antithesis of sustainability. Either I failed

> > to make myself clear or you didn't read it carefully.

> >

> > As for the "rationality" issue I agree with you. That's why it's so

> > important to maintain a contextualistic perspective, thus avoiding the

> > extreme positions of dogmatism and utter skepticism.

> > ************************************************************

> > Wandemberg |

> > On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Wandemberg, I would like you to take a closer look at what THE DP1

> > > postulate of Dr. Emery says and then tell me if you believe that it is

> > > consistent with the concept of "sustainability" and if you believe that

> > > yes, please tell me why do you believe so.

> > > I also would like to add that "irrationality" has its roots and

> > > these "roots" are the real problem and these "roots" are the ones we have

> > > been talking about. Moreover, "rationality" is a relative concept, what

> > > is irrational for some is rational for others: cutting the trees is

> > > irrational for environmentalist/ecologist, but it is not for others.

> > > Therefore I do not think that everybody will agree with your statement.

> > > Greetings;

> > > Lucio

> > > On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear all:

> > > >

> > > > Everyone would agree that the foundation of the environmental, social,

and

> > > > economic degradation is inappropriate human behavior (i.e., goal-seeking

> > > > behavior at best) whereas the foundation for sustainability is

> > > > ideal-seeking behavior (based on the four ideals of Homonomy,

Nurturance,

> > > > Humanity, and Beauty, [Emery, 1993]).

> > > >

> > > > Unfortunately, ideal-seeking behavior is only possible within a

> > > > contextualistic environment (see Pepper's world hypotheses, 1943) and

its

> > > > dispersive nature and unlimited scope. Hence, the need to transform our

> > > > "centralized mindset" (as Mitchel Resnick puts it) or bureaucratic,

> > > > dependency-generating, DP1 structures into participative democratic

> > > > (ideal-seeking) ones.

> > > > Best regards,

> > > > ************************************************************

 

September/26/1997/ELAN: THE SEARCH CONFERENCETHE SEARCH CONFERENCE

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:28:16 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

 

Estimado Lucio:

The search conference (SC) is the first part of a two-satge methodology

to help organizations, individuals, etc. determine their desirable and

achievable future (first part). The second part, namely, how should one

organize her/himself to achieve the desired future is part of the

Participative Design Workshop (PDW).

The role of the SC & PDW manager is to control the time, process, and

environment, NOT the content, for the content is up to the participants

who will have to live with the consequences.

I understand your confusion since, quite unfortunately, that book you

refered to (Emery & Purser) did not do a good job. You may want to stick

with Merrely Emery's (Ed) Participative Design for Participative Democracy

(1993)

I have no doubt that eventually (during the next millenium) DP2 structures

may become anachronic just as much as DP1 structures are right now.

YOU ASK:

> the pages I listed and tell me if there is a need or not for a search

> conference manager for the approach to work.

ANSWER:

If the people doing a SC and/or PDW are knowledgeable of the design

principles involved and are cognizant of the theories behind them (e.g.,

ecological learning, open systems, directive correlations models, etc.)

then, there is NO need for a manager.

YOU ASK:

>Also tell me if it is

> assumend or not that the impact of the presence of the manager of the

> search conference on the behavior of the participant will be marginal

> and minimize throught cummulated experience. "There is not

> misunderstanding at all": you need a manager and you need to assume that

> when the conference manager is "resolving" deadlocks he has no effect on

> the behaviors of the elements of the deadlocks.

ANSWER: Again, the SC manager's job is to manage the process NOT its

content. In addition, conflicts are NOT resolved but RATIONALIZED! (big

difference).

Atentos saludos,

Juan Carlos W.

 

September/26/1997/ELAN: Re: THE SEARCH CONFERENCE

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:58:53 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

 

Dear Wanderberg, it seems from the above that your clear cut answers

to my questions are that yes you need a conference manager and that yes it

is assumed that his presence has no "influence". Therefore I stick to my

comments since I do not think that the 1996 book is wrong.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> The role of the SC & PDW manager is to control the time, process, and

> environment, NOT the content, for the content is up to the participants

> who will have to live with the consequences.

.....You are assuming that the presence of the SC & PDW manager does not

influence the behaviour of the participants. It may, specially when

helping "por ejemplo campesinos analfabetos" in less developed countries

who are weary and worry about the "Ingeniero/Maestro" trying to help them.

> ANSWER: Again, the SC manager's job is to manage the process NOT its

> content. In addition, conflicts are NOT resolved but RATIONALIZED! (big

> difference).

....You are reafirming your assumption of "not influence"

>

> Atentos saludos,

>

September/26/1997/ELAN: Re: HUMAN BEHAVIOR: the BOTTOM LINE

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:16:31

Lambe

It is good to see that the intricacies of sustainability remain very much

alive amongst a handful of us. I must admit, however, that I have found a

lot of the recent discussion esoteric at best. Is the conclusion after so

many words really: HUMAN BEHAVIOR: the BOTTOM LINE?

 

September/26/1997/ELAN: Re: Earth Network Website

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:15:30 -0400 (EDT)

Geonomist

Lucio,

Jeff.

Freedom has at least two varieties: license and liberty, the former being the

absence of responsibility, the latter being the consequence of

responsibility. The free trade that we have, that is so ruinous, is more

precisely licensed trade. The rule books that govern it (an oxymoron for

"free trade", no?) can be measured not in inches but feet. Why does precise

terminology matter here? We can remove from out opponents the mantle of

"freedom" and reclaim it for ourselves. Markets, and their forces, are

supposed to reward efficiency at the expense of waste. Doing that would be

good for environments. So why don't they? Because of favored trade and other

deals between global elites, because of politics, not neutral, blind markets.

Hence my focus on rights. Once we merge the northern notion of sparing earth

with the southern aspiration of sharing earth, we win.

 

September/26/1997/ELAN: MicroEconomics and sustainability

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear friends, just a few more thouthts. In the discussion was established

that "sustainability" and "sustainable development" are not the same

thing. Since existing microeconomic theory provides the

bases(economic incenvives and desincentives) that underline the

"sustainable development" paradigm, then is it possible to address

"sustainability" using the same microeconomic theory?

Your comments are welcome.

Greetings;

Lucio

September/26/1997/ELAN: Re: MicroEconomics and sustainability

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:43:10 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Since existing microeconomic theory provides the

> bases(economic incenvives and desincentives) that underline the

> "sustainable development" paradigm, then is it possible to address

> "sustainability" using the same microeconomic theory?

Estimado Lucio, the answer has to be a big NO. Unless of course we want to

continue trying to fool ourselves for a little longer.

Saludos,

JC

September/26/1997/ELAN: Re: MicroEconomics and sustainability

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:11:06 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear Wanderberg. I know that there are some people that believe that yes

we can use the same theory and there is no need for readjustments and I

would like to know why they think so. There are also people that believe

that we can not use the same microeconomic theory and that we have to

reajust it to deal with sustainability and I would like to know why

they think so. I would like to know this two views and their merits from

others in the list.

Have a nice weekend;

Lucio

 

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

>

> > Since existing microeconomic theory provides the

> > bases(economic incenvives and desincentives) that underline the

> > "sustainable development" paradigm, then is it possible to address

> > "sustainability" using the same microeconomic theory?

>

> Estimado Lucio, the answer has to be a big NO. Unless of course we want to

> continue trying to fool ourselves for a little longer.

>

> Saludos,

> JC

September/27/1997/ELAN: Re: Earth Network Website.

Sat, 27 Sep 1997 19:42:02

Lambe

Thankyou for the good and refreshingly straightforward comments. (ELAN

26.9.97) A few additional thoughts:

You stated that markets are supposed to reward efficiency at the expense

of waste but don't do so "...because of favored trade and other deals

between global elites, because of politics, not neutral, blind markets."

At the risk of displaying a shallow grasp of an issue that appears

fundamental to the environment's and our future, surely no greater

challenge confronts economists than persuading markets and governments to

adopt life-cycle accounting and prices that reflect true, unsubsidised*

global costs? There is little question that the world would be a different

place with a more promising future if a one dollar hamburger cost future

carnivores 30-40 dollars or a litre of fuel required many more Escudos than

we pay in Portugal (where prices are already among the highest anywhere).

Ernst von Weitzsäcker, Amory and Hunter Lovins have recently stated that

sustainability will elude us unless we learn at least to quadruple resource

productivity. They join many others in calling for revenue-neutral

taxation changes which promote labour and discourage scarce commodity

consumption. Under present cicumstances and prices, of course, there is

little financial incentive to alter the unsustainable behaviour of a

privileged minority which contributes disproportionately to the problem.

At a time when UNDP and UNCTAD among others have warned about growing

world inequities, when the earth's 100-odd billionaires have assets

equivalent to 40% of the human population, when 20% of the planet's peoples

are consuming 80% of the planet's resources, those incentives cannot arrive

too soon.

* 700B US$ p.a. according to André de Moor.

September/29/1997/ELAN: Re: Earth Network Website.

Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:46:43 -0600

John

On 27 Sep 97 at 19:42, Lambe wrote:

> You stated that markets are supposed to reward efficiency at the

> expense

> of waste but don't do so "...because of favored trade and other

> deals between global elites, because of politics, not neutral, blind

> markets."

On the surface, I think that is a fair assement. Like anything else

though, there is nothing in this world which functions as a perfect

ideal, as would "neutral or blind" markets might seem to be. In any

event, consider:

While an additional, say, 5% profit might be realized by applying

efficiency to waste recovery, that additional 5% wouldn't compete

often enough with the, say, 10% (or more) profits waiting to be

realized in other areas once the initial investment, which yielded

the waste to begin with, yielded the cash flow whose management would

yield those larger gains. When busy making money: time is money,

even so that the the subcontracting of the waste-profit potential is

not worth the time of those who see higher profits for the time

invested on other horizons.

It does seem that until the manufacture of wastes becomes more

profitable than whatever the products are which create the wastes,

there will never be sufficient economic incentive which would reduce

waste -only moral: which is an ideal.

Saludos,

John

September/29/1997/ELAN: Re: Earth Network Website

Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:46:39 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear John. This statement under the current development model is true,

specially if we assume that the polluter pay principle will continue

to be an ideal and therefore a moral issue. The literature shows

that the market, the way it is, has not been and is not the right place

for equity issues[social pollution(poverty); non-market social

services...], and environmental issues(environmental pollution, non-market

environmental servises...). This is the main reason why there is welfare

economics and positive economics. Does this means that the market can not

be made consistent with economic, social and environmental issues?

Comments are welcome.

Lucio

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, John wrote:

> It does seem that until the manufacture of wastes becomes more

> profitable than whatever the products are which create the wastes,

> there will never be sufficient economic incentive which would reduce

> waste -only moral: which is an ideal.

>

> Saludos,

> John

September/29/1997/ELAN: Re: Earth Network Website.

Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:09:55 -0600

John

To an enlightened market which can afford to be choosy: perhaps, but

markets comprised of those who are most victimized by wasteful

production, I think not --they will buy whatever is cheapest no

matter how adulterated or adulterating; or allluring the new

packaging. The only way, I think, to stop polluters is to make

polluting, legally, too expensive for them -especially when they are

not only looking for ways to actually make waste management so

profitable to be worthy of their pursuit (at their expense rather

than everyone else's), but also when actually paying, lobbying, etc.

to prevent such penalizing laws.

On 29 Sep 97 at 15:46, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

...Does

> this means that the market can not be made consistent with economic,

> social and environmental issues? Comments are welcome.

> Lucio

>

>

> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, John wrote:

>

> > It does seem that until the manufacture of wastes becomes more

> > profitable than whatever the products are which create the wastes,

> > there will never be sufficient economic incentive which would reduce

> > waste -only moral: which is an ideal.

> >

> > Saludos,

> > John

September/29/1997/ELAN: Re: Doing away with the market?

Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:39:58 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Does this mean that the market can not

> be made consistent with economic, social and environmental issues?

It better not, for there is no other means.

Cheers,

JCW

September/29/1997/ELAN: Re: MicroEconomics and sustainability

Mon, 29 Sep 1997 03:24:59 -0500 (GMT)

Carlos Guillermo

Esimado Lucio:

El problema es mas bien metodologico.

Las herramientas teoricas de la microeconomia convencional se disennaron

en su momento por los padres fundadares de la ortodoxia neoclasica , por

ejemplo Walras, para explicara la formacion de los precios en bienes

reproducibles, producibles, apropiables y, evidentmente, utiles.

Es decir un precio adecuado, incita la reproduccion de un bien momentanea

mente escazo si tiene las carcteristicas que anuncie arriba.

Un precio muy alto no resucita los dinosaurios , para poner un ejemplo

extremo. La reproduccion de la naturaleza y los activos naturales, tiene

una logica distinta, de tipo natural, a la cual la ortodoxia economica no

parece que quiera tener en cuenta.

Si ademas, tomamos en cuenta ya otros activos de la naturaleza como la

energia, la segunda ley de la termodinamica (la energia se degrada

irrevocablemente en su uso) coloca a la ortodoxia en una situacion mas

embarazosa.

El texto clasico de Gerogescu La ley de la entrpia y el proceso economico,

efectua una discusion creo que contundente contra la ortodoxia que

prentende , mediante un precio adecuado, revertir los procesos que la

caprichosa naturaleza, ha colocado como irreversibles, no circulares.

Cordial saludo

Carlos Guillermo

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:11:06 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Toledo/Lucio Munoz <munoz@unixg.ubc.ca>

> To: ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA NETWORK <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

> Subject: Re: MicroEconomics and sustainability

>

> Dear Wanderberg. I know that there are some people that believe that yes

> we can use the same theory and there is no need for readjustments and I

> would like to know why they think so. There are also people that believe

> that we can not use the same microeconomic theory and that we have to

> reajust it to deal with sustainability and I would like to know why

> they think so. I would like to know this two views and their merits from

> others in the list.

> Have a nice weekend;

> Lucio

>

>

>

> On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

>

> > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> >

> > > Since existing microeconomic theory provides the

> > > bases(economic incenvives and desincentives) that underline the

> > > "sustainable development" paradigm, then is it possible to address

> > > "sustainability" using the same microeconomic theory?

> >

> > Estimado Lucio, the answer has to be a big NO. Unless of course we want to

> > continue trying to fool ourselves for a little longer.

> >

> > Saludos,

> > JC

September/29/1997/ELAN: Re: MicroEconomics and sustainability

Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:17:56 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Estimado Carlos. Me hubiera gustado contestarle este mensaje y extender

la discusion un poco mas pero se ma ha informado privadamente que "que

este topico es esoterico, trivial y parece que no es considerado apropiado

para esta lista". Por lo tanto, me conprometi a abandonarlo.

Mis mas sinceras disculpas;

Sinceramente;

Lucio

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Carlos Guillermo wrote:

> Esimado Lucio:

> El problema es mas bien metodologico.

> Las herramientas teoricas de la microeconomia convencional se disennaron

> en su momento por los padres fundadares de la ortodoxia neoclasica , por

> ejemplo Walras, para explicara la formacion de los precios en bienes

> reproducibles, producibles, apropiables y, evidentmente, utiles.

> Es decir un precio adecuado, incita la reproduccion de un bien momentanea

> mente escazo si tiene las carcteristicas que anuncie arriba.

> Un precio muy alto no resucita los dinosaurios , para poner un ejemplo

> extremo. La reproduccion de la naturaleza y los activos naturales, tiene

> una logica distinta, de tipo natural, a la cual la ortodoxia economica no

> parece que quiera tener en cuenta.

> Si ademas, tomamos en cuenta ya otros activos de la naturaleza como la

> energia, la segunda ley de la termodinamica (la energia se degrada

> irrevocablemente en su uso) coloca a la ortodoxia en una situacion mas

> embarazosa.

> El texto clasico de Gerogescu La ley de la entrpia y el proceso economico,

> efectua una discusion creo que contundente contra la ortodoxia que

> prentende , mediante un precio adecuado, revertir los procesos que la

> caprichosa naturaleza, ha colocado como irreversibles, no circulares.

> Cordial saludo

>

> Carlos Guillermo

>

> On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

>

> > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:11:06 -0700 (PDT)

> > From: Toledo/Lucio Munoz <munoz@unixg.ubc.ca>

> > To: ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA NETWORK <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

> > Subject: Re: MicroEconomics and sustainability

> >

> > Dear Wanderberg. I know that there are some people that believe that yes

> > we can use the same theory and there is no need for readjustments and I

> > would like to know why they think so. There are also people that believe

> > that we can not use the same microeconomic theory and that we have to

> > reajust it to deal with sustainability and I would like to know why

> > they think so. I would like to know this two views and their merits from

> > others in the list.

> > Have a nice weekend;

> > Lucio

> >

> > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> >

> > > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> > >

> > > > Since existing microeconomic theory provides the

> > > > bases(economic incenvives and desincentives) that underline the

> > > > "sustainable development" paradigm, then is it possible to address

> > > > "sustainability" using the same microeconomic theory?

> > >

> > > Estimado Lucio, the answer has to be a big NO. Unless of course we want to

> > > continue trying to fool ourselves for a little longer.

> > >

> > > Saludos,

> > > JC

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: Doing away with the market?

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 02:11:32 -0600

John

On 29 Sep 97 at 21:39, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

>

> > Does this mean that the market can not

> > be made consistent with economic, social and environmental issues?

>

> It better not, for there is no other means.

> Cheers,

> JCW

>

Hello JC,

I'm not sure what "it" is suppose to refer. If "it" is the "market"

than what is the market if it is anything else than the "economic,

social and environmental issues" of which it is comprised (though,

granted, in that scale of importance "environmental" rates low when

it actually becomes time to hand over the money at the cash

register)?

There is: 'moral'. But that's a piece of cake that, if anyone wanted

to have their cake and eat it too, would have to be, and has been,

one heck of a choker.

To persist, that waste could ever become more important (profitable)

than the production which creates it, is not facing the 'moral' issue

invovled. No?

While I'm taking (involuntarily) issue with what is being stated,

allow me to go a step further: What is supposedly meant by "Doing

away with the market"? Is the market something that can be "done

away" with? I would think its there no matter how adulterated or

unadulterated the goods offered it.

Saludos,

John

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: Doing away with the market?

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:39:16 -0600 (MDT)

JC WANDEMBERG (juwandem@NMSU.Edu)

> While I'm taking (involuntarily) issue with what is being stated,

> allow me to go a step further: What is supposedly meant by "Doing

> away with the market"? Is the market something that can be "done

> away" with? I would think its there no matter how adulterated or

> unadulterated the goods offered it.

Right, that was exacly my point! that's why is so important to reshape it

(the market).

Cheers

JC

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: Doing away with the market?

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:58:14 -0500 (CDT)

Ricardo

At 2:39 PM -0000 9/30/97, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

>> While I'm taking (involuntarily) issue with what is being stated,

>> allow me to go a step further: What is supposedly meant by "Doing

>> away with the market"? Is the market something that can be "done

>> away" with? I would think its there no matter how adulterated or

>> unadulterated the goods offered it.

>

>Right, that was exacly my point! that's why is so important to reshape it

>(the market).

The market? Or "economic thinking"? Giving and taking are real. The market,

the exchange, currency, bonds, economies, are all human constructs,

artifacts of our attempts to structure and make sense of our relationships

with others as well as with our environment. If we can create one

"orthodoxy" we should be able to remake it, and better yet, prevent our

evolving economic experiments from becoming new, entrenched and

self-destructive orthodoxies. Successful species co-evolve with their

environment. It is not the the 18th century. The world is quite different

today. We ought to be able to say the same for our economic thinking.

Ricardo

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: Doing away with the market?

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:05:52 -0600 (MDT)

JC WANDEMBERG (juwandem@NMSU.Edu)

> It is not the the 18th century. The world is quite different

> today. We ought to be able to say the same for our economic thinking.

Certainly!

Cheers,

JC

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: Doing away with the market?

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:54:49 -0600

John

On 30 Sep 97 at 9:58, Ricardo J. Salvador wrote:

> The market? Or "economic thinking"? Giving and taking are real. The

> market, the exchange, currency, bonds, economies, are all human

> constructs, artifacts of our attempts to structure and make sense of

> our relationships with others as well as with our environment. If we

> can create one "orthodoxy" we should be able to remake it, and

> better yet, prevent our evolving economic experiments from becoming

> new, entrenched and self-destructive orthodoxies.

"Constructs" are simply models describing the system or function

of theoretics applied to things already there, ie: economics.

Currency, bonds, etc. are, as you say, "artifacts" of, in this

case, the media of exchange inherent in economics. If they can be

altered, or complemented with, environmental currencies, bonds,

etc., they too would be "artifacts". But would they be

representative of anything inherent to economics --of anything

already there? "Constructs" can not replace or supercede that

which they describe -even new ones.

The "orthodoxy" of capitalism was not a creation rather than a

working description of something already there, nor does

capitalism, as in a creed, have an "orthodoxy", rather than

a defined acquiescence to, again, what is already there.

... Successful species

> co-evolve with their environment. It is not the the 18th century.

> The world is quite different today. We ought to be able to say the

> same for our economic thinking.

I would think such species must begin by acquiescing to the

realities of their environment -no matter what they do or don't

think.

Cheers,

John

September/30/1997/ELAN: Changing perspectives

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:24:52

Lambe

To Lucio, "Geonomist", John, JCW and others:

No one can have any illusions about the ethics of markets. Marketers,

like polititians and lawyers, usually strive to do, at best, what is

possible. At worst, they do what they can get away with.

In this age of free markets and globalisation, many, although none on this

list, I suspect, at least believe the law of supply and demand fixes the

true price of commodities and that markets should operate without

'interference'. But even when they are not being manipulated, markets

reflect only a part of reality. Mere rumours of Iraqi oil sales lower

prices. If new techniques make extraction cheaper, prices likewise drop

with no relation to stocks. World markets, particularly if they are highly

competitive, promote rapid and manifestly unsustainable consumption of even

scarce resources. This distortion of reality becomes even more pronounced

when, as noted earlier, consumption is further encouraged by massive

subsidies.

If economies sought to do what was possible IN THE LONG TERM, if business

quarters referred to centuries and not years, for example, there would be

far less need for this discussion. If asbestos manufacturers had known the

chronic costs of their product, they may have closed this sector before it

dragged the whole business into bankruptcy; there might be a whaling

industry instead of a few renegade flotillas. (Changing perspectives this

way is, admittedly,

much easier said than done.) For more widely used commodities or

functions, though, as with the removal of lead from fuel or the addition of

recycled content to most goods, the only way to make the market "consistent

with...social and environmental issues", to use Lucio's phrase, or make

"the manufacture of wastes...more profitable" as John puts it, is

legislation or taxation fostering stewardship.

For this to happen, many more of us must appeal to our polititians'

statesmanship, a particularly scarce commodity with precious little market

value. We must also appeal to the equally rare visionaries in today's real

superpower, corporations. The only sound demand I believe companies can

make about the draconian steps needed to safeguard our and possibly their

future is that the new sustainable order apply equally to all.

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: Changing perspectives

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:39:27 -0400 (EDT)

Geonomist

Antonio,

Jeff.

Looks like this chat is leading to what we can do. Sure, let's appeal to

elite corps and politicians. And let's tax bads, not goods. Let's eliminate

subsidies. To that short list, let's add user-fees. To get help from another

arena, take back the word "free". Some people are motivated by it. Our

markets are not "free" but biased, favored. And aim for a green dividend.

Give ourselves some encouraging goals to balance the stern ones. Part of the

problem is worldview. Saying we're entitled to a share of Earth's worth

changes worldview. It matches the size of the problem. And for that reason is

daunting. ..."the courage to change what we can, the tolerance to endure what

we can't, and the wisdom to know the difference." Always a tough call.

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: Changing perspectives

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:05:12 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Antonio Lambe wrote:

> To Lucio, "Geonomist", John, JCW and others:

>

> No one can have any illusions about the ethics of markets. Marketers,

> like polititians and lawyers, usually strive to do, at best, what is

> possible. At worst, they do what they can get away with.

Human beings have always followed ideals(theories or real persons)

in their attemp to get better. For example, god, the perfect market,

sustainability...Hence it is natural human behavior. However, when

talking about the market, we have to be careful when talking about

"marketers and polititians" because at least in "scientific theory" they

are not comparable: the marketers are assumed to be rational individuals

and the politians and dictators are considered irrational individuals(it

could be shown in my own framework too). Is anybody familiar with the

"Lapier Experiment"? He showed that "individuals do not do what they say

they will do and when they do, they appear to do what they said they would

not do". This is part of the "irrational man" that is lost when

rationality is assumed(this leaves only the marketers as rational men in

the market). Who may display riskier behavior when there are external

shocks in the market as you mentioned, the rational or the irrational

man?.

 

> If economies sought to do what was possible IN THE LONG TERM, if business

> quarters referred to centuries and not years, for example, there would be

> far less need for this discussion.

There would be not much need for this discussion if the economy

would have reflected economic, social and environtal concerns since the

beginning of the marketization of traditional production systems. That

way there would not be need for us to be here trying to figure out how to

efficiently patched the social and environmental holes left out by the

economic only based model.

>The only sound demand I believe companies can

> make about the draconian steps needed to safeguard our and possibly their

> future is that the new sustainable order apply equally to all.

This is true from the developed country point of view. However, what are

the options for developing countries for example in the face of free

trade talks? Do they have options?

Your comments are welcome.

Greetings;

Lucio

September/30/1997/ELAN: the discussion continues

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:25:54 -0400

Glenn

Dear Friends:

I think that Elan should decide whether it is a bulletin board for esoteric

interpersonal discussions, or whether it will at least attempt to focus

discussions on more specific issues relating to environment in Latin

America.

The human behavior discussion is of little interest, I am sure, to most of

the subscribers, and I would call on the conference administrator to try to

channel this discussion between the two parties, rather than to all Elan

subscribers.

If I am being out of order, then please remove my name from the list, as

this is not what I expected when I signed up.

Glenn

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: the discussion continues

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:58:40 -0600 (MDT)

Michael

Bravo, Glenn!

Some people seem to forget that they don't have to respond to the entire

list. Perhaps the quote from Will Durant (see below) is apropos.

Michael

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Glenn wrote:

> Dear Friends:

>

> I think that Elan should decide whether it is a bulletin board for esoteric

> interpersonal discussions, or whether it will at least attempt to focus

> discussions on more specific issues relating to environment in Latin

> America.

>

> The human behavior discussion is of little interest, I am sure, to most of

> the subscribers, and I would call on the conference administrator to try to

> channel this discussion between the two parties, rather than to all Elan

> subscribers.

>

> If I am being out of order, then please remove my name from the list, as

> this is not what I expected when I signed up.

>

> Glenn

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: the discussion continues

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:52:56 -0400 (EDT)

Samantha

Hear hear!!!

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Glenn wrote:

> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:25:54 -0400

> To: ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA NETWORK <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

> Subject: the discussion continues

>

> Dear Friends:

>

> I think that Elan should decide whether it is a bulletin board for esoteric

> interpersonal discussions, or whether it will at least attempt to focus

> discussions on more specific issues relating to environment in Latin

> America.

>

> The human behavior discussion is of little interest, I am sure, to most of

> the subscribers, and I would call on the conference administrator to try to

> channel this discussion between the two parties, rather than to all Elan

> subscribers.

>

> If I am being out of order, then please remove my name from the list, as

> this is not what I expected when I signed up.

>

> Glenn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Samantha

Septemeber/30/1997/ELAN: Re: the discussion continues

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:29:22 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

I suggest to those hot-tempered (close-minded?) individuals who seem to

love exercising sensorship to start exercising their delete finger

instead. But hey!, before you do, please take a deep breath....and RELAX!

Cheers,

JCWB

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: the discussion continues

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:07:55 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear Glenn. I can not believe that you are saying that "human behavior"

is of little interest for "the environment in latino america list". In fact,

It may be possible that human behavior is the most "important explanatory

mechanism" of the apparent mismatched between theory and practice in

terms of the environmental/deforestation discourse in developing

countries. This seems to be the case in central america

according to my preliminary findings and according to the survey

of local and regional perceptions. Because "human behavior"

seems to be such an important factor in the "sustainable

development/sustainability discourse I decided to start the

"sustainability discussion". Basically, "human behavior" is the

one hidden in the concept of sustainable development and "human

behavior" is the one that the "sustainability framework" I

proposed is trying to uncover. Moreover, it can be shown that

"human behavior"(the economic man) may be behind our unsustainable

development and is keeping out other types of behavior(economic

based altruistic and social behavior, environmentally based

altruistic and social behavior....). Finally, it can be shown,

that human behavior has to be changed(by means of economic based,

environmentally based and socially based market incentives and

regulations) to achieve "sustainability". If human behavior is not

important as a discussion topic in order to create more sustainable ways

of living in latino america, please tell me which one it is and lets

explore it. My thesis seems to indicate that this topic is important,

however, this topic can be approached from different angles, if you

do not agree with mine. Let me know what is your angle and I will

respect it.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Glenn wrote:

> Dear Friends:

>

> I think that Elan should decide whether it is a bulletin board for esoteric

> interpersonal discussions, or whether it will at least attempt to focus

> discussions on more specific issues relating to environment in Latin

> America.

>

> The human behavior discussion is of little interest, I am sure, to most of

> the subscribers, and I would call on the conference administrator to try to

> channel this discussion between the two parties, rather than to all Elan

> subscribers.

>

> If I am being out of order, then please remove my name from the list, as

> this is not what I expected when I signed up.

>

> Glenn

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: the discussion continues

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:38:03 -0600

John

On 30 Sep 97 at 12:07, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear Glenn. I can not believe that you are saying that "human

> behavior" is of little interest for "the environment in latino

> america list". ...

Having checked with the local laundromat's bulletin board here in

Latin America for specific evironmental issues to address, I fear

Glenn must be right, and in all good conscious we should then limit

ourselves to 'Save the Turtles', and 'Release the Catch' --of which

human behavior in its markets for turtle meat, shell and oil, and

sportfishing industry must be irrelevent. For in-depth variety, I

suppose, we can also discuss 'Save the Choko's Boxtops' --an

increasingly popular campaign involving widespread indifference to

both chocolate and cardboard producing plants, trees, etc. So

indifferent that, perhaps, the discussion of 'inhuman behavior' will

be allowed us.

...My thesis seems to indicate

> that this topic is important, however, this topic can be approached

> from different angles, if you do not agree with mine. Let me know

> what is your angle and I will respect it.

May I suggest, Lucio, that you add how the study of environmental

issues should be relegated to only those who have been entitled to

make their livlihoods discussing only its constructs and paradigms,

so as to, apparently, provide more platable packaging for those who

would abuse the environment for their exploitations.

Ci@,

John

September/30/1997/ELAN: Re: the discussion continues

Tue, 30 Sep 97 11:39:18 EST

ANDRES

I agree with Glen commentaries. This is one of the advantages or

disadvantages to have an unmoderate discussion list.

Maybe the participants in issues like human behaviour should be aware when

the dialogue becomes more a personal argument. I hope to see some changes

and return to a normal discussion.

Andres

Subject: the discussion continues

Date: 9/30/97 11:22 AM

Dear Friends:

I think that Elan should decide whether it is a bulletin board for esoteric

interpersonal discussions, or whether it will at least attempt to focus

discussions on more specific issues relating to environment in Latin

America.

The human behavior discussion is of little interest, I am sure, to most of

the subscribers, and I would call on the conference administrator to try to

channel this discussion between the two parties, rather than to all Elan

subscribers.

If I am being out of order, then please remove my name from the list, as

this is not what I expected when I signed up.

Glenn

September/30/1997/ELAN: Keep up the lively discussions

Tue, 30 Sep 97 13:54:34 PDT

ghouse

-------------------------------------

Name: Geoff House

E-mail: ghouse

Date: 09/30/97

Time: 13:54:34

This message was sent by Chameleon

-------------------------------------

Dear Lucio and friends,

Keep up the lively discussions. What better way to learn than to explore diverse

angles and ask challenging

questions--just as you, John Pastore, JCW (I forget his full name at the

moment), and others are doing? Kudos to all of you.

The statements of this fellow, Glenn, and some of the people who have supported

him are more than a little perplexing. Such

statements give rise to various questions/concerns, not the least of which call

into question the commitment that these

people supposedly have espoused in relation to environment issues in the

Americas. Do they want to explore ways to bring

about change? What, exactly, do they want? Further, what, exactly, do they do at

their respective organizations? And,

equally important, why do they feel so threatened by the current discussions?

Obviously, not every one is going to be interested in every subject. The obvious

suggestion to someone who doesn't care for

a subject at hand is to skip it and move on.

Perhaps, in fact, these people who would sensor the contents of discussions

don't belong here. By all means, remove their

names from the list. Why DID they sign up? One would think that this forum could

be a place for thoughtful, aware,

proactive, people with a genuine interest in exploring vehicles of change.

Meanwhile, keep up the lively discussions.

Geoff House, journalist

September/30/1997/ELAN: Discussion limits

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:12:05 -0700 (MST)

Serge

Dear Elaneros:

Recently I have found the endless discussion on the same subject

to defeat the purpose of ELAN. How about replying directly to the person

making a statement rather than filling our e-mail message boxes with 150

messages on the same subject. And please let's not start another 200

message discussion on this subject.

*************************************

Serge